Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Peter in Rome?

Thessalonian said:
Let's say this passage means that Peter couldn't evangelize or minister to the Gentiles. Something pretty untenable when you consider Acts 10 & 11 as well as Pauls rebuke of Peter for moving over to the Jewish side of the isle when certain Jewish leaders of the Church came to town:

Gal 2
12: For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.


Were there no Jews in Rome? History says otherwise. The Emporer Claudius (emporer from 41-54 AD) ordered all Jews expelled from Rome according to early historians. A rather odd command if there were no Jews there. It is likley that up to 50000 Jews lived in Rome at that time. So I am afraid I can't count your two. Please try again.

Isn't it in Gal. 2 where Paul corrects Peter? :wink:

If you check the time line Gal. 2 was was written after Acts 15. It didn't matter what Peter did before, Paul was called for a ministry, the Church sent him to the Gentiles. As I posted before, if Peter was in Rome, it was for his ministry among the Jews. We find nothing in Scripture that'd suggest Peter went to Rome, unless you want to call Babylon Rome, it's a groundless tradition.

Romans 1:11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end you may be established.

By the time Romans was written, St. Peter would have been in Rome for 16 years, how was it Peter wasn't able to establish the church in 16 YEARS?

http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/m ... errome.htm

There was a Peter in Rome: http://www.historicist.com/articles2/peterrome.htm

:lol:
 
JM said:
Did Peter ever visit Rome?

Good day, JM

I think the historical documentation on this issue is very clear and overwhelming in confirming that Peter was in Rome.... and that he died there.

Peace to u,

Bill
 
Keep your $10k to invest in a new career

The brilliantly-researched 'The Two Babylons' by Rev Alexander Hislop, not only gave much evidence for Peter never being in Rome, but much evidence for the DIFFERENT Peter, who WAS in Rome, being an occult leader
Typical of the occult-dominated RC system to try its worst to disguise & hide its true origins & practices

But any reader can google RC-HQ site, hit catechism & see how all the distinctive RC dogma & practices are UNscriptural

A cataclysmically catastrophic catechism, in fact

Back to link thread where you so pathetically try to discredit that scholarly work & I expose just how catechysmically catastrophic the blasphemously idolatrous RC catechism is...

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... c&start=15

Engage Da Vinci Code?

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... highlight=
 
Isn't it in Gal. 2 where Paul corrects Peter? :wink:

Why yes it is. Are your trying to raise a straw man here? Methinks you are.

If you check the time line Gal. 2 was was written after Acts 15. It didn't matter what Peter did before, Paul was called for a ministry, the Church sent him to the Gentiles.

Acts was likely written after Galations, you are correct there. Galations was probably written around 53 according to the following:

http://www.mediahistory.umn.edu/indexte ... Dates.html

Acts likely in 62. Here's the rub however. Acts 15 actually is thought to have OCCURED in around 50. So there is a flaw in your chronology.

As I posted before, if Peter was in Rome, it was for his ministry

Regardless. It matters little. There were Jews in Rome quite clearly. But it seems you have a goose and gander problem. You see you say Peter can't preach to the Gentiles because he is the Apostle of the Jews. . Yet you ignore the many verses where Paul preaches to the Jews even though he is the Apostle to the Gentiles. Timothy, a Jew, is one of his converts. He preaches to Jews in Ephesus and Thesslonica and Berea. Now last I checked you don't hold to terrals Gospel of the Kingdoms



By the time Romans was written, St. Peter would have been in Rome for 16 years, how was it Peter wasn't able to establish the church in 16 YEARS?


Romans 1
[8]
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world.

I do believe there was a community established there. So what's your point. Regardless once again you are argueing from silence in all of this and making incorrect suppositions.


Funny to you. But I actually thank you for that. You know something, Peter was born in a town called Bethsaida. That happens to mean "House of Fishermen". Kind of an odd coincidence since Jesus called Peter to be a "fisher of men". :-D . Something else interesting. Matt 16:18 happended at Ceasera Phillipi if I am not mistaken. Now Ceasera Phillipi is said to be the center of pagan worship. Now at that very rock where Jesus spoke to Peter there was this huge rock and on top of the rock (I believe it is still there today) there was a shrine to this God. Hmmmm "city on a hill for all to see". At the bottom is a very deep pool that was called "the gates of hell". I don't think any of this is coincidental.

I heard a story recently, an old indian legend called The Old Turtle. Interestingly enough this story very closely parrallels the story of creation and mankinds fall and the coming of Christ.

Now your little story may well be true. Haven't researched it. You guys love the pagan card but you don't understand. God speaks to all men through nature and some of it happens to manifest itself in what they do. There are few coincidences. So if your story is true that is not neccessarily a bad thing for me. :lol:

No evidence that Peter was ever in Rome? Well then perhaps you can explain this conspiracy of early church writings? Are they faked. Foxe seems to like them to show that Peter was martyred in Rome. You argue from silence of the scriptures. Arguements from silence as I said before are rarely good arguements. As for Babylon being Rome, your Protestant brothers and sisters seem to like to say Rome is Babylon in Revelations when they talk about the whore of Babylon being the Catholic Church. :o . Tell me, since Babylon was destroyed nearly 600 years earlier what is Babylon referring to in Peter's writings and Revelations?

Your handwaving, arguements from silence, and head in the sand attitude about the early Christian writings has been most unimpressive in this debate so far. But keep it up. I enjoy when my opponents debate from such weak positions. :angel:

Blessings
 
Acts was likely written after Galations, you are correct there. Galations was probably written around 53 according to the following:

http://www.mediahistory.umn.edu/indexte ... Dates.html

Acts likely in 62. Here's the rub however. Acts 15 actually is thought to have OCCURED in around 50. So there is a flaw in your chronology.

Have another look at your numbers. Acts 15 = 50ad. Gal. 53ad. You can't even follow your own points...

No strawman was raised at all, just a simple fact surrounding the timeline.

Again, I still haven't made any post claiming Peter was NEVER in Rome, shake your head.
 
If you check the time line Gal. 2 was was written after Acts 15.

Actually it was the confusion about your point. I read it as you saying that Acts 15 was written after Acts 15 was written. This would have been false. But your statement should have been that Gal 2 was written after Acts 15 happened. That would have made it clear. Your condescention about my confussion on the matter is duly noted. :o

You are quite correct that scripture does not say Peter was in Rome. Neither does it say he was not. So perhaps now you can explain how all those early church writers from many different lands got it wrong. Seems to me you have used history when it didn't contradict the Bible. Well from what I can see in this debate the only contradiction with the Bible is in Protestants heads because of their anti-catholic anti-papacy hangup. Is that a fair assessment? I think so.

Blessings
 
Thessalonian said:
Georges said:
I don't think there is any proof that he ever visited Rome....
What do you call proof? In the Bible? From what I have read from your posts that wouldn't even be proof. Hoever the Bible is silent on the matter and silence is a poor logical position if one is going to use it to prove something. There is much significant evidence in the writings of the early Church that he was there and there would have to have been some kind of conspiracy accross the word going on for him not to have been there. Several writers from several different countries did in fact say he was in Rome. Back when there wasn't even a pony express this is significant.

Was Peter in Rome? Read.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9012frs.asp

And you please read.....http://www.remnantofgod.org/pope1.htm#11

Sounds logical to me.....

I must comment on:

From what I have read from your posts that wouldn't even be proof.

No...I won't....Some people get my posts...some don't. If I make people stronger in their faith because they can prove me wrong...great. If I cause people to consider something they never heard before...great.
 
Sounds logical to me.....


I know it does but logic has not been your strong suit on this board. Don't have time right now. Headed home. But his proof are more like poof's. Very silly. Catholics are embarrassed about Matt 16:18 and peter's commissioning by Christ? Really? :o Where are these Catholics? :-D
 
Thessalonian said:
If you check the time line Gal. 2 was was written after Acts 15.

Actually it was the confusion about your point. I read it as you saying that Acts 15 was written after Acts 15 was written. This would have been false. But your statement should have been that Gal 2 was written after Acts 15 happened. That would have made it clear. Your condescention about my confussion on the matter is duly noted. :o

You are quite correct that scripture does not say Peter was in Rome. Neither does it say he was not. So perhaps now you can explain how all those early church writers from many different lands got it wrong. Seems to me you have used history when it didn't contradict the Bible. Well from what I can see in this debate the only contradiction with the Bible is in Protestants heads because of their anti-catholic anti-papacy hangup. Is that a fair assessment? I think so.

Blessings

I simply asked a question, posted a few doubts, that's all. This apologetic's section gets heated at times and it affects the way I post, I'm taking a break.

Peace.
 
JM,

If your still around before you go, could you tell me if you believe there was a man named martin luther in the 16th century and that he started a "reformation"? (I call it a deformation but that's another issue). I don't see it anywhere in the Bible so we cannot resolve it in this manner. I hope we can agree that it is okay to look at the historical documents in this regard and we can see that there was in fact a man named martin luther. Certainly you believe in a man named constantine as welll. This is much further back but there is no real reason to disbelieve it, even though the Bible doesn't tell us anything about him.

After a certain point in scripture we are not told where Peter was any more. Why is can we not use the early writings, historical accounts to give us more info as long as it doesn't contradict scripture. The only reason it is important for Protestants to show that Peter was not in Rome is because they think it undermines the papacy. That the Popes "have" to be in Rome. This is actually a misconception by Protestants. It is not a doctrinal thing that the pope is in Rome but a simple matter of historical fact. Why do people fight historical facts.

Blessings
 
It has been said in this thread that Peter was to be the Apostle to the gentiles and therefore he no longer at some point had a ministry to the gentiles but to the Jews alone. Seems we have a bit of a problem however. In making this arguement, those who use it fail to notice an important thing. Paul, the note is to be the Apostle to the gentiles. In using good for the goose and gander logical application, therefore if being "apostle to" means that the ministry is limited to that group, then why does Paul preach in ephuses, thessalonica, and berea to JEWS. Why does he write the book of HEBREWS. Some might say he preached to jews before he was declared apostle to the gentiles. All well and good but the book of hebrews was written AFTER he was declared apostle to the Jews.

Another problematic point of illuded to with my example of Martin Luther above. I will make a similar arguement that should hit closer to home for those bible students. The Bible is really silent on who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as well as Hebrews for that matter. Those books do not identify their author. Some speculation might be made of course using parts of the text. But no definitive statements can be made. The titles of the boods i.e. "the Gospel of John" were a tradition carried on. They were not penned by the writers themselvs. Now in some sense this is not that important. It is the message that is important. But in anothre it is. For the councils that were guided by the Holy Spirit to the conclusion that the books we now have in the New Testament are the Word of God made their decision in part on the basis of the witness. Therefore they used the same historical authors that I am in arguing that Peter was in Rome for some time. Another matter the Bible is silent on. There is no verse that says he was in Rome. But there is no verse that says he wasn't. And we know that he did go to Anitoch so he did not always stay in Jerusalemn. Historical records indicate he was in Antioch for at least a few years.
The bottom line is that where the bible is silent we do have historical records that are quite reliable in the naming of the books where scripture is silent. We also have historical records from many people in distant lands who had little contact with one another. Why do we fight so hard to ignore them and say Peter was never in Rome based on an arguement of silence, a poor logical position, from scripture. Does it hurt the Protestant doctrinal position? It shouldn't really. But this quesion of Peter being in Rome must bother you alot because it sure comes up on sites such as this one alot. Food for thought. God bless.
 
Woop woop!! :D

nice thess!!

man i wish i could bak up Catholism like that!

God Bless !
 
In Matthew 16:18 Jesus says to Peter, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." According to the Catholic Church, this is where Jesus appointed Peter to be the first Pope, the earthly head of the church. That is, the Catholics teach that "this rock" is a reference to Peter. The Scriptures are quite clear in stating that the Rock is Jesus Christ and no one else. In fact, Peter himself testifies of this truth when he calls Jesus the "chief cornerstone" in I Peter 2:6. Paul tells us in I Corinthians 3:11 that Jesus Christ is the "foundation". He then says in I Corinthians 10:4 that Jesus Christ is the "Rock". The reader might also give some consideration to the words of Moses in Deuteronomy 32:29-31. Jesus Christ is the foundation (I Corinthians 3:11), the perfect match for the "rock" ("petra") of Matthew 16:18. Christ is clearly the Rock in Scripture (II Samuel 22:32; Psalms 40:2; 42:9; 89:26; 92:15; 94:22; Acts 4:11-12).

As for Peter being the first Pope....

1. The word "Pope" is never mentioned once in God's word.

2. Peter was married (Mat. 8:14; I Cor. 9:5), while the Popes are not.

3. Peter refused to allow others to bow down to him (Acts 10:25-26), but the Popes allow such practices.

4. Peter didn't think very highly of tradition (I Pet. 1:18), yet tradition is a major authority in the Catholic Church.

5. Peter believed in waiting for the "crown of glory" (I Peter 5:4), while all Popes believe in wearing a crown now.

6. If Peter was the Pope in Rome, as the Catholics teach, then why did Paul not mention him in his letter to the Romans? In Romans chapter 16, Paul gives the names of over twenty church members, yet he fails to mention Peter. How could this have happened if Peter was the Pope in Rome?

7. If Peter was the head of the church, why did Paul have to set him straight on doctrine in Galatians 2:11?

8. If Peter was the Pope, then why didn't he say so in his epistles? He simply labeled himself "an apostle of Jesus Christ" (I Peter 1:1) and nothing more.

9. Paul wrote 100 chapters with 2,325 verses, while Peter wrote only 8 chapters with 166 verses. Why would "the Pope" write less?

10. Paul spoke of Peter, James, and John (not just Peter) being pillars in the church (Galatians 2:9). Peter is never magnified above the other Apostles.

11. Don't forget that it was Peter who denied the Lord Jesus Christ three times in one night (Matthew 26:69-75). Does this sound like something that would be done by the head of the church?

12. The Catholics believe that Peter was the first Pope in Rome, but the New Testament never speaks of Peter being anywhere near Rome.

Conclusion: The Bible never even hints of Peter being a Pope. This whole doctrine is Catholic tradition, totally lacking Scriptural support and is an invention of man to support thier cause.

What about the priesthood? In the Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ is our High Priest (Hebrews 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5; 8:1; 9:11), and all Christians make up a spiritual priesthood (I Pet. 2:5). Only in the Old Testament do we find a special class of priests, the Levites, who make intercession to God for the common people. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ has sanctified all Christians through His completed work on Calvary (Hebrews 10:10-11). All priests today are unnecessary and unscriptural.

However, the Roman Church desires to force upon it's members all sorts of sacramental laws and rituals in order to keep them faithful to "the Church". Such practices are foreign to the New Testament.

For example, the idea of calling a priest "father" is not New Testament Christianity, but rather OLD Testament paganism (Judges 17:10). Jesus clearly forbids this in Matthew 23:9.

The New Testament never speaks of a special priest class to rule over the laity. In fact, Peter forbids this in I Peter 5:3: "Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock." The "Nicolaitans" ("to conquer the laity") were also guilty of this wicked practice, and Jesus Christ said He HATES it (Revelation 2:6). By appointing priests, bishops, archbishops and popes, the Catholic Church has constructed a system which rules well over half a billion people and throws them into the darkness of deceit.

One of the requirements of a Catholic priest is celibacy, in spite of the fact that Peter (their first "Pope") was a married man. There is simply no command in the Bible for any spiritual leader to be unmarried. In fact, I Timothy 3:2 says that a bishop must be the husband of one wife. I Timothy 4:1-3 told us that there would come a time when people would be "forbidding to marry", and Paul said this was a doctrine of devils. Why, even the OLD TESTAMENT priests were allowed to marry (Exo. 6:23-25)! The only priests who didn't marry were the pagan priests from places like Babylon who remained celibate to practice their religious prostitution. Should you confess your sins to a priest? No, you should not. Peter told Simon of Samaria to pray to GOD in Acts 8:22. Jesus Christ is the One Mediator between God and men (I Timothy 2:5). Jesus is the High Priest, while Christians make up a spiritual priesthood. A true Christian IS a priest (I Peter 2:5, 9) and needs to confess to no one other than Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic priesthood is totally unscriptural.

Peter is no one's rock...Christ is the only Rock
 
More off topic straw men and red herrings by D46. Bravo good man. :-D It is not a requirement that Catholic preists be married. Eastern rite priests don't have this discipline. They may be married, though many choose not to. There are alos latin rite priests who are married that come from other faiths that are allowed to be priests in the Catholic Church. So it is not really problematic that Peter may have been married. It is difficult to say whether Peter was married at the time though. He certainly had been married but there are indications from tradition that his wife had died earlier. In Mark 1 it speaks of his Mother in Law living with him in the house of he and Andrew his brother. No mention of his wife. I'll answer more of your silliness tomorrow if I get time.
 
Thessalonian said:
More off topic straw men and red herrings by D46. Bravo good man. :-D It is not a requirement that Catholic preists be married. Eastern rite priests don't have this discipline. They may be married, though many choose not to. There are alos latin rite priests who are married that come from other faiths that are allowed to be priests in the Catholic Church. So it is not really problematic that Peter may have been married. It is difficult to say whether Peter was married at the time though. He certainly had been married but there are indications from tradition that his wife had died earlier. In Mark 1 it speaks of his Mother in Law living with him in the house of he and Andrew his brother. No mention of his wife. I'll answer more of your silliness tomorrow if I get time.
D46 has given scriptual documentation for his discussion points, and you lower the debate to attacking the debater. That is uncalled for and will not be tolerated. Please apologize to D46 for calling his discussion points strawmen and red herrings. The last remark where you call D46's discussion points silliness is a violation of this forum and will not be tolerated. Please correct your error, so that a warning will not be forthcoming. Thanks.
 
I will apologize for the "silliness" comments. I will also apologize for the "bravo good man" But D46 has had the Catholic perspective explained on these issues from both scripture and Catholic theology and understanding and continues to post things that are simply contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches and so they are straw men and red herrings and I see no need to retract a blatant fact.

Blessings
 
D46 only one of your points deals with Peter being in rome. The rest are off topic red herrings and straw men. So let's deal with that one while I am still on the board.

12. The Catholics believe that Peter was the first Pope in Rome, but the New Testament never speaks of Peter being anywhere near Rome.

1)First of all this is an arguement from silence. Poor logic by any logic books standards. Do tell where the Bible says Peter was never in Rome? It doesn't. Therefore from scripture we cannot determine conclusively the matter.

2) Why did many different people from many different lands say that Peter was in Rome and died in rome. Surely you believe that George Washington existed and was the first president, though the Bible does not say so. This of course is not contrary to the Bible and neither is it contrary to the Bible that Peter ended up in Rome. It is only contrary to your bias against Catholicism . So why do you insist we beleive that Peter was not in Rome. Why are you involving yourself in arguements that Paul warned against if it is not provable one way or another from scripture.

3) You have seen on this thread how it is said that Peter could not have gone to Rome because he was "apostle to the Jews". First of all this appears unlikely because because it is quite well known that there were Jews in Rome. Secondly though if Peter was apostle to the Jews, meaning he could not admister to the gentiles, then as Apostle to the Gentiles Paul should not have ministered to the Jews. Why did he mister to the Jews in Thessaloniaca and Berea (Acts 17) as well as Timothy who was a Jew and write the book of Hebrews. Are they making a false arguement here? Give me an unbiased opinion in this matter.

4) If Peter being Apostle to the Jews meant that he could not evangelize gentiles then why is he choosen as the one to convert the first gentile converts in Cornelius and company in Acts 10, 11? Why was he chastised for showing improper bias in Antioch by Paul, rather than for minstering to Gentiles which he clearly was if you read the account of this incident in Gal 2.

It is quite clear to me that this arguement about Peter being "apostle to the Gentiles" is an abuse of scripture.
 
Thessalonian said:
I will apologize for the "silliness" comments. I will also apologize for the "bravo good man" But D46 has had the Catholic perspective explained on these issues from both scripture and Catholic theology and understanding and continues to post things that are simply contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches and so they are straw men and red herrings and I see no need to retract a blatant fact.

Blessings
We thank you for the public apology and hope D will accept it.

All parties; lets continue to debate issues, not persons. 8-)

Vic
 
Thessalonian said:
I will apologize for the "silliness" comments. I will also apologize for the "bravo good man" But D46 has had the Catholic perspective explained on these issues from both scripture and Catholic theology and understanding and continues to post things that are simply contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches and so they are straw men and red herrings and I see no need to retract a blatant fact.

Blessings

No apologies necessary for those "terms of endearment". I've been cut with much sharper knives than was wielded here. Besides, I've probably called you a "cracker idolator" or "bead counter" somewhere down the line...perhaps worse. At any rate-not big deal to me. Unfortunately, anything I post refuting this harlot system of worship will be contradictory to what the Catholic Church teaches because it's contrary to the word of God on all counts. I think you could come up with a better phrase than the straw man and red herring thing you've been using over and over. It's reallly getting quite old and worn out.

As for Peter's mother-in-law living with him and the wife not mentioned, that's neither hear nor there. The bottom line is (at least in times past) Catholic priests were to be celibate-part of the doctrine. Of course, many were married going back centuries ago and rightly so, from my perspective. God never intended such a burden as celibacy, knowing the problems it would generate and has to this day as the headlines clearly show.

I find it rather odd that in the book of Romans, the Apostle Paul in his final salutation at the end of the last chapter, never mentions Peter at all...it appears nearly everyone else is mentioned but Peter. Simon Magus was in Rome but, not Simon Peter...highly doubtful. Nevertheless, my bottom line is that even if Peter paid a visit to Rome, he was not there to start a pagan church and for sure he wasn't a pope...Leo I may have been the first bonified "Pontifax Maximus" or perhaps Gregory, but not Peter. Peter spoke too much about Christ to be a pope.

As for Paul, he preached, In the Jewish synagogues,Acts 9:20. Saul was now convinced that Jesus, whom they had crucified, and who had appeared to him on the way to Damascus, was the Son of God, or Messiah; and therefore as such he proclaimed him. He was afterwards indeed the apostle of the Gentiles, but according to Christ's command, he first preached the word of life to the Jews, to convert some, and to leave others without excuse: After which he turned from them unto the Gentiles according to "It was necessary that the word of God should first be spoken to you; but because you put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles". Acts 13:46.
The doctrine he preached; That Jesus was the Son of God, the true, promised, and expected Messiah; and that all the prophecies and predictions of the prophets concerning the Messiah, were exactly fulfilled in his person.

Peter had a vision if you recall in Acts 10:10-16, and doubted it's vallidity until he was told of Cornelius summonsing him to his house. In Acts 10:22... And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.

Cornelieus was warned that he should send for Peter and no one else. I don't question God's reasoning about who goes to who to preach the good news and don't believe anyone else should make great strides toward disallowing God's intentions. He does as he will. You're just trying to mix and mince for debates sake and I won't play that game.
 
Solo said:
Thessalonian said:
More off topic straw men and red herrings by D46. Bravo good man. :-D It is not a requirement that Catholic preists be married. Eastern rite priests don't have this discipline. They may be married, though many choose not to. There are alos latin rite priests who are married that come from other faiths that are allowed to be priests in the Catholic Church. So it is not really problematic that Peter may have been married. It is difficult to say whether Peter was married at the time though. He certainly had been married but there are indications from tradition that his wife had died earlier. In Mark 1 it speaks of his Mother in Law living with him in the house of he and Andrew his brother. No mention of his wife. I'll answer more of your silliness tomorrow if I get time.
D46 has given scriptual documentation for his discussion points, and you lower the debate to attacking the debater. That is uncalled for and will not be tolerated. Please apologize to D46 for calling his discussion points strawmen and red herrings. The last remark where you call D46's discussion points silliness is a violation of this forum and will not be tolerated. Please correct your error, so that a warning will not be forthcoming. Thanks.
 
Back
Top